American Aspiration

I realize I've been dormant for a long time on this front.  Since last I wrote, Representative Scott Garrett is still representing the Fifth District, Gov. Chris Christie is still the governor, but Papa Joe was convicted on racketeering.  

I'm writing not because I've moved back into the Fifth district, but because I've published a small book on politics.  I missed writing about politics, and decided instead of a new blog I'd release my thoughts in book form.  American Aspiration: Where We Are and Ways to Get Where We Want to Be is now available in the Kindle Store, with additional formats coming soon.  A little sample of topics and the introduction is below.  Enjoy!

Here's the table of contents:

Introduction. 2

Part One:  Where We Stand. 4

• Facts to Keep in Mind
• Government Deficit & Spending
• Household Wealth and Debt
• Our Lack of Information

Part Two:  Why We Can’t Have Nice Things. 12

• Political Industrial Establishment
• Privatization of Essential Services & No Bid Contracts
• Congress & Our Lack of Participation

Part Three:  How We Begin to Make Things Better. 19

• Vote in the Next Election, and the Next, and the Next
• Get Informed in 10 minutes a Week
• Buy American like Your Job Depends on It
• Take a Breath and Think
• Start Talking To Each Other

Part Four:  Nice Things We Could Have. 30

• Infrastructure
• Vocational Training & Higher Education
• Honoring Those That Serve
• Stuff Others Already Have
• Where Do We Go Now?

Notes. 37

And the Introduction:

Introduction

This began innocently enough as my latest blog creation, and became this collection of short essays.  Like many, I see the direction the country has been moving as troublesome.  Politics has always been a bit of a love/hate relationship for me, I have always believed better things are possible when our system works the way it should, and have rarely seen that happen.  I was a Boys State Senator, ran my county’s Republican office, went to the New Hampshire primaries, ran for Congress as an Independent, wrote a blog visited by the press, as well as staffers in Congress and the White House, and attended President Obama’s Inauguration.  As one of my former Political Science professors noted, I like to get my hands dirty.  

Probably where I felt I had the most impact during my run for office was during my classroom chats.  You got the sense there was optimism and energy in students, despite the cynicism of some of the adults in the room.  Years later, through conversations around the lunch table at work, I realized optimism or even a basic understanding of government is lacking.  It’s not just the millennials, many of my peers and elders have been so overwhelmed by the 24/7 political sniping and institutional ineptitude that they’ve thrown up their hands. 

So, I sat down with the hope/intention of writing something that would make it easy to find the information to make decisions and (hopefully) have readers feel more comfortable participating in the system.  It honestly isn’t that hard if you know where to look, but as I wrote I realized some background and context would probably be helpful.  The idea of telling people to go to such and such a website blind didn’t feel right, so here we are.  The collection is broken into four parts:

• Where We Stand covers some interesting facts like how we’re spending money, the United States ranking 25^th in median income, and how little we know.
• Why We Can’t Have Nice Things reviews special interests, privatization and our lack of participation as it relates to our “leaders” in Washington, our states and school boards.
• How We Begin to Make Things Better dives into voting and becoming informed with an e-mail a week, as well as buying Made in the USA, digesting information and talking politics with others.
• Nice Things We Could Have goes over items many nations ranking higher already have, and asks about the things we could have that we don’t.

 My hope is that you’ll read this, talk about it, and gift it to friends and family on your way to a more involved citizenship.  If you’re already involved, I hope you will recommend or gift it to someone you know is not involved but would be receptive.  While I could have put it up as “just another” blog, the grand experiment is that the insights in this book are enough that it is gifted and paid forward to others. 

While I tried to make it approachable, some of it may seem technical.  I’ve been told by some it’s a quick read, and by others it’s very heavy, so I believe it’s probably just about right.  It’s not intended to be an overly scholarly piece, more of a conversation starter, but I do have lots of end notes for those who may wish to dig deeper.  If nothing else, my hope is that you benefit in some way from reading this.  

Grow a Sack

One of the things I think people hate most about politics is that, by and large, Congress is so often a lethargic oedipal organization.

If you think of all of the problems we as a nation face (from the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac mortgage issue; to gas prices; to the fact the dollar is so weak Anheuser Busch is no longer an American company) you might believe Congress should be doing SOMETHING about anything.

If the latest National Journal Congressional Insiders Poll is any indication, we shouldn't hold our breath:

Q: Would it be politically smart for your party to act on only a limited legislative agenda before the November election?

Democrats (39 votes)

Yes 67 percent
No 31 percent
Depends (volunteered) 3 percent

[snip]

Republicans (36 votes)

Yes 53 percent
No 44 percent
No difference (volunteered) 3 percent

That's right, for political purposes, the majority of each party on Capitol Hill feel it would be best to sit on their laurels until after the November Election.

This is part of the reason people get so frustrated with politics, because so often it's a politician's career placed above politician's constituents. They're both more interested in being able to blame the other party for failure than actually doing anything. Too bad it would take a Constitutional Amendment to make term limits a reality, which needs to be approved by Congress, because this is the greatest argument for them.

Unfortunately, too few of us take advantage of the tool the Founding Fathers gave us to limit the terms of the ineffective: Voting. This is a system we as voters have allowed to develop. Until we step up to the plate and hold politicians accountable at the polls, they won't change.

Must See Film: Election Day

PBS did the broadcast premier of Election Day, a documentary by Katy Chevigny. I originally saw the film as part of the Stranger Than Fiction series a while back, and it instantly became one of my favorite films of all time.

The film takes an amazing look at our electoral process by observing 11 different stories all shot on Election Day 2004. The good, the bad and the ugly are shown as they happen.

The film covers important aspects regarding registration, voting rights, and ballot verification. It also has very touching scenes, including those covering individuals voting for the first time.

PBS will be streaming the entire film on-line for the month of July, and I can't recommend it strongly enough. Anybody that wants to help organize a screening let me know.

NJ Can Save Some $$$

After getting my sample ballot last night for the school board elections next week, I'm even more convinced a way New Jersey could immediately save money is to consolidate elections.

My ballot has three names for three positions, and two budgets. For this, every registered voter in town had to be mailed a ballot. Not a postcard, but a whole folded ballot. I know it's the law, and people should be informed of their choices, but it seems like a bit of overkill.

How much did that cost to send out to every voter in town? How much is the cost to get the machines ready and set up and oversee the election?

I'm willing to bet if someone was willing to do the work, they'd find out the cost per vote to run these little elections is extremely high. I've heard most of the excuses about why this can't be done, and they're isn't a single one that could stand up to a mild breeze.

Let's save some cash and consolidate elections.

Clean Elections Off To A Good Start

I've made no secret that I'm a fan of removing special interest influence from elections. When someone like our own Representative Scott Garrett will vote against a bill benefiting Greenwood Lake that he previously voted for twice, apparently because a special interest group with only 40,000 members comes out against it, something is seriously wrong with the process. Nothing like watching our Representative bend our District over a barrel to ensure he gets some campaign donations and expenditures on his behalf.

At the state level, the Clean Elections program seeks to eliminate the Garrett-esque about face by removing corporate and large individual donations from the process. In the first poll released about the program, it seems it's already had a positive impact on voters. Rutgers' Eagleton Institute of Politics and Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind teamed up to review the program.

Here's what they found:

• Twice as many likely voters in the Clean Elections districts had heard quite a lot or some about the Clean Elections legislation compared to the state as a whole
(44% to 22%).
• The same was true regarding awareness of the legislative races in their districts, with 70% of likely voters in the Clean Elections districts saying they had heard quite a lot or some about the races, compared to 37% of likely voters statewide.
• Voters in the Clean Elections districts also reported having received more information than voters in the rest of the state. Eighty-two percent of likely voters in the Clean Elections Districts reported receiving campaign ads in the mail, compared to 49% statewide. Seventy-four percent of likely voters in the Clean
Elections districts said they had gotten information about the legislative races from an article or articles in the newspaper, compared to 56% statewide.

These are tangible results. Something not in the report that is also tangible was voter turnout. It's widely believed turnout earlier this month was the lowest ever for a legislative election, with estimates at 30%. That's a 4% drop in turnout from 2003, the last time the entire legislature was up for re-election, and effectively means 15.01% of the population gets to call the shots.

In the 37th District, where the Republicans did not qualify for the program, the unofficial results show a 5.9% drop in the percentage of registered voters voting for State Senator over 2003's number.

HOWEVER, in the 14th District the drop was .6% (even though 2,775 more people voted), and in the 24th turnout increased 6.1% (nearly 11,000 more voters). While still not great, State Senate voting for the 14th and 24th were 40% and 35% respectively. My hope is that when the turnout numbers are finalized by the state they will publish it by legislative district, in addition to county, since they already estimate voters before the election.

In spite of these gains, what is going to take time is restoring the public faith in our state government. Clean Elections voters polled didn't have significantly more faith in government to do the right thing compared to those outside the clean elections District:

Compared to statewide voters, voters in the Clean Elections districts were just as likely to say they:
• trust the legislature only some or none of the time to do what is right;
• are concerned that campaign money influences legislators after the election;
• are not confident that public financing of campaigns will reduce the influence of large donors in the political process.

Faith in elected officials is earned, not given, and it is incumbent upon our elected leaders to do better. It's a strong statement when only 17% of voters statewide trust the legislature to do the right thing most of the time. Often, as done in the Bergen Freeholder debate by the BCDO candidates, officials protest that they are not crooks and should not be thought of as such. However, if 83% of the public thinks that way; something either within the process or through the actions of those protesting has triggered that opinion.

If the Clean Elections Program, over time, can help restore the public faith in our elected officials it's a good thing. Ultimately, it will be the responsibility of the officials to seal the public confidence deal.

We Can't Do Better Than This?

This from njpols.com:

Most political observers are estimating turnout in next week's legislative elections to fall somewhere between 25-30 percent, at best.

There is something seriously wrong when the election that has the most impact directly on people's lives is the one that people skip.

I actually have skipped an off-year, but that was kind of my bottoming out point with political involvement. However, very few people I talked to over the weekend are planning on voting on Tuesday: They don't know the candidates; they don't have the time; they're not registered.

I realize that the folks who read this blog are likely to vote, but we as the involved have to do more to involve those who are not. Government works best when people are involved in the process. When voters are the ones holding the officials accountable at the polls, they respond to the voters instead of the special interests. When voters are the ones holding officials accountable the policy more closely reflects the will of the people.

My hope is, in talking to folks, a few of them may turn out. However, this little blog and me handing out some fliers tomorrow isn't going to have the kind of impact we collectively need. We as the active community need to do a better job of engaging the non-active. Not for partisan gain, not for political power, but simply for the strength of the process.

A Solution to Primary Leapfrog Idiocy

With the Wyoming GOP announcing their intention to move their delegate selection contests to January 5th, it is now conceivable that New Hampshire will hold its primary on December 18th, with Iowa going December 10th, due to each state's laws dictating their position in the process and the fact that both Christmas and New Year's Day are on Tuesdays.

Nothing says Presidential elections like hot chocolate and candy canes. How will primary voters react to the carolling of the candidates? Fred Thompson may not even be in the race at that point, but I bet he does a heck of a rendition of "We Three Kings."

From the AP story:

"We're first in the nation," said Tom Sansonetti, the state party's 2008 county convention coordinator. "At least for the next couple, three weeks until New Hampshire and Iowa move, which I expect they will."

[snip]

"Ultimately the goal here is to look beyond 2008 and fix the system, because the system is broken," Sansonetti said. "Ultimately the goal here is to look beyond 2008 and fix the system, because the system is broken," Sansonetti said. "All this jumping around is because the states feel disenfranchised by letting Iowa and New Hampshire call the shots."

First off, Iowa and New Hampshire don't call the shots: President Bush lost in 2000, Senator Bob Dole lost is 1996 and President Bill Clinton lost in 1992.

Now that we've got that out of the way, here's my solution for 2012 and beyond. However, part of it starts now.

- Iowa and New Hampshire go in mid-January.

- The remaining states are split into four groups of 12, with a geographic distribution so that each region of the nation has 3 representative states in each group.

- Then, the second Tuesday of February, March, April and May one group has a primary.

- This primary rotates every four years, so that the group that goes last one year goes first the next.

(ex. Year 1: 1234 Year 2: 4123 Year 3: 3412 Year 4: 2341)

- The initial order would be determined by overall eligible voter turnout percentage in the GENERAL election of 2008 for the group. The group of states with the top turnout goes first in 2012, with the group coming in second going 4th so they get to go first in 2016.

- Finally, in 2024, after everybody has had the chance to go first, the order is redrawn based on the voter turnout percentage over the last four elections (2012-24), and the process begins again.

It really isn't that hard, and I would think the parties and states could come to some kind of agreement before their conventions in August 2008, which at this rate will be nine months after the first primary ballots are cast.

A Young Rove

H/T to Rob Tornoe on this one. This is a great piece, which also shows the seeds of modern campaigning.

GOP Hopefuls Disrespecting Voters

I'm pretty much a huge fan of anything that gets more people involved in the political process, especially young people. Voter turnout in our country is abysmal, and politics as usual bred apathy is a huge part of the reason. So when an event like the YouTube Debate on CNN averages 2.6 million viewers, and is very successful in attracting youth, it is a good thing in my mind. Here's how they did:

Included in the latest viewership numbers were 407,000 viewers in the coveted adults 18-34 demographic, which topped the previous record of 368,000 for the New Hampshire debate. Both are higher than the previous record holders, CNN's February 15, 2000, GOP debate (357,000), Fox News Channel's January 22, 2004, Democratic candidates debate (340,000) and MSNBC's South Carolina debate on April 26, 2007 (327,000).

When you add together that people can watch the debate at their leisure (it'd be nice if YouTube would post how many folks have), and the fact that almost 3,000 people submitted questions, few can argue that the event wasn't a huge success in engaging the public.

As great as I think the YouTube Democratic Debate was is how pathetic I think it is that the Republican front runners are bailing on their YouTube debate. Mitt Romney has formally declined, and Rudy Giuliani has something better to do than take questions from voters.

Speaking in his own defense, Mitt Romney has been quoted in a number of stories saying that getting asked about global warming by an animated snowman was demeaning to the candidates. Does Mitt Romney have any idea what kind of time it took to animate that sequence? It's not like it's not a question on a lot of people's minds and one that you will be asked, what's wrong with it being asked creatively? What part of people going out of their way to be involved in the process is demeaning to Romney's apparently overly delicate ego?

None of the questions were something a candidate for President in either party shouldn't already know their answer to. It's not like the Republican field has to take the "are you black" or "are you woman" enough questions. They've already covered their view on evolution in a previous debate, and lightning seemed to strike the building when Giuliani was talking about his social views. What, they don't want to have to say something nice about the person standing to their right?

Even though I can understand the reason, I don't respect our Representative Scott Garrett for his lack of willingness to debate. With this being one of the biggest Presidential elections in 100 years, I certainly won't vote for a coward for President. I tend to pick one or two candidates from each party to follow with the idea I'll eventually volunteer in the get out the vote operations (yes, I've done both parties in the same year). One of my picks is one of those disrespecting voters, and there are no words for how utterly disappointed I am in this position.

If the Republican Party wants people to take them seriously again, they need to meet people where they are at, and embrace the opportunity to engage young voters. You're going to get questions about Iraq, health care, gas prices, immigration, Bush, corruption, the economy, education and probably a question about faith in politics. If you have answers people may not like, but they're how you really feel, people will respect that. If you don't have answers, get out of the race.

I'm looking forward to seeing Senator John McCain and Representative Ron Paul on September 17th, and would hope CNN wouldn't reschedule for Giuliani and Romney if they don't want to embrace people they hope will vote for them. Forget them. The forum is there, if Giuliani and Romney are too disrespectful or afraid of voters to attend that's their own problem that voters will remember. Debate on, with or without the frightened ones.

Voting Rights vs. Garrett & Bush

On Saturday I had a chance to watch Democracy Works on PBS, hosted by Steve Adubato. The show was regarding returning ethics to Trenton, and I appreciated the insights Assemblyman Kevin O'Toole and others shared. One of the points by the panel was that we as citizens need to work harder to stay informed and participate so that we get the kind of Representation we want. Truth be told, only 34% of New Jersey voters showed up on election day in 2003, the last election comparable to this year's contest. With property taxes and corruption being the number 1 & 2 things people talk about in New Jersey politics, only 34% of folks voted. Put another way, only 18% of New Jersey's voters are deciding for the rest of us.

Voter turnout, for most politicians is a frustration. When I spoke at the Meet the Candidates forum at Sussex County Technical School, "participate" was a common refrain. One candidate used the example that of all people in the room, the number of people turning out would mean the three folks sitting in the front row were making all of the decisions. True public servants want the feedback because they want to do a good job. However, not all public servants fall into this category.

I've covered Representative Scott Garrett's disdain for upholding the voting rights of naturalized citizens; last year Garrett also voted for a voter ID bill based on several State laws that court ruling after court ruling after court ruling finds disenfranchises voters in the poll tax tradition, and is therefore unconstitutional. Garrett's votes are, at best, deplorable in that he does not passionately believe in the right so many have died and fought to protect.

Garrett's votes to institutionalize disenfranchisement go hand in hand with the efforts of the Bush administration's use of the Justice Department to meet the same end. This was buried in the Record on Friday, but it deserves a read.

Former department lawyers, public records and other documents show that since Bush took office, political appointees in the Civil Rights Division have:

-Approved Georgia and Arizona laws that tightened voter ID requirements. A Federal judge tossed out the Georgia law as an unconstitutional infringement on
the rights of poor voters, and a federal appeals court signaled its objections to the Arizona law on similar grounds last fall, but that litigation was delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court until after the election.

-Issued advisory opinions that overstated a 2002 federal election law by asserting that it required states to disqualify new voting registrants if their identification didn't match that in computer databases, prompting at least three states to reject tens of thousands of applicants mistakenly.

-Done little to enforce a provision of the 1993 National Voter Registration Act that requires state public assistance agencies to register voters. The inaction has contributed to a 50 percent decline in annual registrations at those agencies, to 1 million from 2 million.

-Sued at least six states on grounds that they had too many people on their voter rolls. Some eligible voters were removed in the resulting purges.

In late 2001, Ashcroft also hired three Republican political operatives to work in a secretive new unit in the division's Voting Rights Section. Rich said the unit, headed by unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate Mark Metcalf of Kentucky, bird-dogged the progress of the administration's Help America Vote Act and reviewed voting legislation in the states.

So when Garrett ran for Congress, saying he was a friend of Bush, he wasn't kidding. Folks who don't believe in and actively seek to undermine the fundamental principal of voting have no place at any level of government, let alone in the White House or Congress. If more of us take an active role as citizens, we'd be able to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place.

If you hate the AMT, vote in 2007

One of the issues I heard the most about, and one I know Rep. Scott Garrett and I believe is desperately needed for our District is Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief. Scott's website sums up the problem for many in the District fairly well:

The Alternative Minimum Tax, or AMT, is a parallel tax universe that was initially established to keep high-income taxpayers from avoiding a significant portion of their tax liability. But, the arcane structure has spread into the middle class and applied to more than 4 million families in 2005. These are solidly middle-class families, such as couples that make more than $58,000 a year and itemize their deductions.

The Record also covered the problem recently, with Rep. Bill Pascrell discussing his plans:

Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-Paterson, who was recently named to the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said one of the areas where he would concentrate is on the alternative minimum tax, which in many cases deprives North Jersey families of tax breaks enjoyed by people in other parts of the country who do not pay such high property and state income taxes.

My tax adviser used to refer to the AMT as the SST (Seven States' Tax), because those doing the heavy lifting of this burden largely live in seven states. The reason this has not been fixed is because the majority of the nation doesn't have to deal with this, and therefore there isn't a majority within Congress or the Senate who are willing to tackle the problem.

Effectively, AMT relief for the seven states would likely lead to slightly higher taxes in other parts of the nation. Not a popular proposition among legislators, no matter how unjust the situation is. This injustice also accounts for why our return on tax dollars continues to decline year after year as more middle income families are ensnared. We send more money to Washington in terms of AMT and receive about the same level of funding year after year.

While we wait for Congress to address this problem, we need to take certain matters into our own hands. This year the entire legislature is up for re-election, and lasting property tax relief is the only way to combat the AMT. Only 34% of voters showed up in 2003 (the last off year without a Governor's race). If people want real relief and real reform, people have to show up to vote and hold accountable those ultimately responsible to fix the problem.

NJ Legislature to OK corruption

As part of the long overdue reforms for property taxes in our fair state, provisions suspending taxpayer funded pensions for elected officials convicted of corruption was part of the proposal. It now seems the legislature has stripped the provision.

A new bill to revise taxpayer-paid pension and health benefits would let elected officials convicted of corruption keep their pensions.

A provision that would have required such officials to forfeit public retirement benefits and receive mandatory jail time was stripped from a property-tax reform measure scheduled for a vote today.

Senate President Richard J. Codey and Assemblywoman Nellie Pou, the bill sponsors, said there was support among legislators for cracking down on corrupt elected officials, but the question was whether all public workers convicted of corruption should face the same penalties.

YES, YES THEY SHOULD! You're going to tell me we should have to pay pensions for Sharpe James or Wayne Bryant when/if they're convicted? This is a large part of the reason we pay so much in taxes across the board. It's single bid contracts, it's selling public property for below market rates, it's no-show jobs at taxpayer funded institutions, etc.

One of the reasons we're stuck in this ridiculous mess is because nobody votes in Assembly elections. I don't mean to say nobody votes out the crooks, it's that nobody votes. In the last Assembly election without a Governor's race involved (2003), 40% of voters in my legislative district showed up. However, a closer look at the numbers shows many towns hovering around the 30% mark.

As a State only 34% of voters showed up. So not only do those serving in the legislature not have to worry about losing their pensions if they're corrupt, those who are protecting their corrupt legislative colleagues probably don't have to be worried about getting kicked out of office.

As voters, we do have a say in what goes on so long as we show up and hold elected officials accountable. If you're looking for a New Year's Resolution you can keep, promise to get informed and vote next November. It is the only chance we have to put an end to corruption if our officials refuse to hold themselves accountable.